Analyzing outcome of treatment of severe head injury: a review and update on advancing the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale.

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), two decades after its description, remains the most widely used method of analyzing outcome in series of severely head-injured patients. This review considers limitations recognized in the use of the GOS and discusses a new approach to assessment, using a structured questionnaire-based interview. Assignments can be made to an extended eight-point scale (GOSE) as well as the original five-point approach-in each case, with a high degree of interobserver consistency. The assignments are coherent with the principles of the World Health Organization classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps, and their validity is supported by strong associations with the results of neuropsychological testing and assessment of general health status. The need to allow for disability existing before injury, issues concerning the time of assessment after injury, and subdivisions of the scale into "favorable" and "unfavorable" categories are discussed. It is concluded that, in its improved structured format, the Glasgow Outcome Scale should remain the primary method of assessing outcome in trials of the management of severe head injury.

[1]  M. Bullock,et al.  Current status of neuroprotection trials for traumatic brain injury: lessons from animal models and clinical studies. , 1999, Neurosurgery.

[2]  Mahoney Fi,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. , 1965 .

[3]  Relationship between Glasgow Outcome Scale and neuropsychological measures after brain injury. , 1993 .

[4]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[5]  B Jennett,et al.  Disability after severe head injury: observations on the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. , 1981, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[6]  G. Teasdale,et al.  Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. , 1998, Journal of neurotrauma.

[7]  D. Cope,et al.  Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury. , 1985, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  J. Kreutzer,et al.  Interrelationships between crime, substance abuse, and aggressive behaviours among persons with traumatic brain injury. , 1995, Brain injury.

[9]  E H Herskovits,et al.  Is the spatial distribution of brain lesions associated with closed-head injury predictive of subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Analysis with brain-image database. , 1999, Radiology.

[10]  Sean M. Grady,et al.  Clinical trials in head injury. , 2002, Neurological research.

[11]  Sung C. Choi,et al.  Effect of THAM upon outcome in severe head injury: a randomized prospective clinical trial , 1993 .

[12]  H. Schouten,et al.  Agreement between physicians on assessment of outcome following severe head injury. , 1983, Journal of neurosurgery.

[13]  P. Wehman,et al.  Substance abuse and crime patterns among persons with traumatic brain injury referred for supported employment. , 1991, Brain injury.

[14]  G. Teasdale.  Management of head injuries. , 1982, The Practitioner.

[15]  D. Wade,et al.  The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. , 1988, International disability studies.

[16]  B. Jennett,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME AFTER SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE A Practical Scale , 1975, The Lancet.

[17]  B. Jennett,et al.  Cognitive sequelae of severe head injury in relation to the Glasgow Outcome Scale. , 1986, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[18]  A. Silman,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. , 1992, BMJ.

[19]  M. Abdalla,et al.  The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? , 1993, BMJ.